Summary
Appeal by relatives of a man who died in police custody and of the sole eyewitness to the torture, against a High Court order refusing to transfer the investigation and refusing bail to the eyewitness. The Supreme Court held that, as the allegations were against the local police and no accused had been arrested for months, the investigation lacked credibility and had to be transferred to the CBI; it gave the eyewitness liberty to seek bail directly from the High Court and made senior State officials responsible for his safety.
Issues
- Whether the investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi (FIR No. 341 of 2024) should be transferred from the State police to an independent agency.
- Whether any relief could be granted regarding bail to Gangaram Pardhi, the sole eyewitness to the custodial torture, who had been implicated in several subsequent cases.
- What protection the State owes to the sole eyewitness of a custodial death.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe State argued that the eyewitness could seek bail from the courts concerned and that there was no justification for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136. The Court nonetheless, on the facts, transferred the investigation and gave liberty to move the High Court for bail. (¶¶ 22, 31, 34)
- Sections 105, 115(2), 3(5) and 120, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023After a magisterial enquiry, the FIR against the Town Inspector and other police personnel was registered for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, voluntarily causing hurt and joint liability, to which voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession was later added; the Court noted that the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder was omitted. (¶¶ 10, 11, 29)
- Section 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Added to the custodial death FIR on the basis of witness statements recorded during investigation. (¶ 11)
Held
- The credibility of an investigating agency should be impeachable. The power to transfer an investigation must be used sparingly, in the interest of justice and to maintain public trust, but where the investigating agency is itself privy to the dispute, doubts about the credibility of the investigation make out a ground for transfer. (¶ 25)
- Where the allegation of causing a custodial death is against local police officials, the maxim nemo judex in causa sua applies. Circumstances such as the post-mortem board failing to give an opinion on the cause of death despite numerous injuries, the family being prevented from lodging an FIR, the FIR being registered only after a magisterial inquiry with the murder offence omitted, and no arrest for about eight months, give rise to a clear inference that the local police investigation is not fair and that the prosecution may be subjugated by the accused; the investigation must therefore be transferred to the CBI. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- The CBI was directed to register the RC forthwith, arrest the police officials found responsible within one month and complete the investigation within 90 days of the arrest. (¶ 32)
- Where the facts indicate a deliberate attempt to implicate the sole eyewitness of a custodial death in successive cases so as to keep him in custody and prevent him from deposing against police officials, he may be given liberty to move the High Court directly for bail in all cases registered after the incident, and the High Court is to decide such applications expeditiously keeping these observations in mind. (¶¶ 33, 34)
- It is the duty of the State to protect the sole eyewitness to custodial torture and death under the witness protection scheme; responsibility for his safety, in prison or on bail, was placed on the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police of the State. (¶¶ 35, 36)
Result
Appeal disposed of. Investigation of FIR No. 341 of 2024 transferred to the CBI; responsible police officials to be arrested within one month and investigation concluded within 90 days of arrest. Gangaram Pardhi given liberty to move the High Court directly for bail in all cases registered after the incident; his safety made the responsibility of the Principal Secretary (Home) and DGP, Madhya Pradesh. Pending applications disposed of.